Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Mitzi Green as Vice-Chairman of the Call-In Sub Committee for the 2009/10 Municipal Year.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Sub Committee;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2009 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2009 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Appendix to the report of the Director of Business Transformation and Customer Service.

Prior to the commencement of the consideration of the Call-In matter, the Chairman advised that the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communications and Corporate Services was in attendance at the Sub?Committee to respond to the call?in as part of the requirement of that process.

It was reported that the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communications and Corporate Services (the Portfolio Holder) had agreed a decision in relation to the Learning and Development Project.  A Call?In Notice calling in the decision had been subsequently received, signed by more than 150 members of the public, and the decision had therefore been referred to this Sub?Committee for consideration.

The Sub-Committee received the notice invoking the call?in procedure, the report of the Director of Business Transformation and Customer Services submitted to the Portfolio Holder and the relevant minutes.

The decision had been called-in on four grounds:

·                     inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

·                     insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice;

·                     absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

·                     action not proportionate to the desired outcome.

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting, and invited Darren Butterfield to speak on behalf of the signatories. 

Mr Butterfield, addressed each of the points raised within the Call?In Notice, outlining the concerns Unison had with regard to each and where they believed failures had occurred in the process followed to date.  Having fully participated in the consultation process, Unison had submitted a response which included a request for a full Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) to take into account the impact the decision would have in terms of equality on staff.  It was alleged that:

·                     at no stage during the agreed consultation period had an EIA been conducted;

·                     the decision to then extend the consultation period was unilateral and had affected facility time;

·                     no explanation had been given as to why the EIA was not conducted during the agreed consultation period;

·                     there was no evidence in the Full Business Case that alternative options had been explored;

·                     there was no service performance data of the current function, no options appraisal or improvement examination;

·                     the options put forward in the Unison response had not been explored;

·                     it was not a competitive process;

·                     the action was not proportionate to the desired outcome as the decision would result in redundancies for limited cost savings;

·                     Unison requested independent scrutiny to define the figures involved.

Upon being invited to respond, the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communications and Corporate Services advised that the process leading to his decision had been underway for nine months, allowing for substantial consultation with Trade Unions, staff involved and the BTP (Business Transformation Panel).  An EIA was required to be completed and the outcome reported prior to the decision being made, not necessarily during the consultation period.  In response to a request, he had suspended Standing Orders to enable representations to be made by Unison at the relevant Portfolio Holder Decision meeting.  He had made provision for earlier consultation in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

RESOLVED:  That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item for the reasons set out below:

The Sub-Committee noted the appendix to the report of the Director of Business Transformation and Customer Service.